Option chain with analytics

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial value by disclosing the exact analytics computed and that live expiries are listed, which is otherwise unavailable since there is no output schema. It still omits data-freshness, rate-limit, or sourcing caveats, so not a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is a single dense, front-loaded sentence enumerating what is returned, with essentially no filler. The list is long but every clause names a distinct returned metric, so it earns its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the return payload and does so thoroughly. For a read-only analytics tool with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, the only missing element is usage routing against siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents expiry formats, symbol values, rate_pct, and strikes_each_side. The phrase 'around the money' echoes the strikes_each_side/symbol semantics but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource (NSE option chain) and enumerates the analytics returned (PCR, max pain, OI build-ups, ATM IV, straddle implied move/Greeks), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like price_option or get_quote without opening the schema. It lacks an explicit contrast naming those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as price_option (single-option pricing) or get_quote. Usage is only inferable from the enumerated content ('around the money', listing expiries); no context or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.